Homosexuality is wrong from since God created man to be with woman to the social world we have today. It makes natural law & nature unbalance to the government we have today. "One nation under god" the words straight out the pledge or allegiance. So Why is America changing so many things after back when the Deceleration of Independence was shaped around the Bible. And for the people who say "Oh the Bible is fake blah blah blah" Well then you have no faith at all in the man who created you. The Bible has been around thousands of years & has never changed & God has written 2 books, Genesis & The New Testament. You can't beat history.

Man and woman evolved to produce offspring to perpetuate the human race.

You can not produce a baby by shoving the male sexual member up the hole meant for the elimination of waste in another man or a woman for that matter. That practice is sick and disgusting. Two women can't produce babies by shoving objects up their female parts.

More diseases are transmitted by homosexuals.

Homosexuals received the wrong signals growing up as kids. It is not their fault that they are gay, but, that does not make it right.

But, if they want to be sexually abnormal in the privacy of their homes, so be it. But, they deserve no special right in our culture.

The question is, who's word are we going to take? If we take man's word, there is nothing wrong with gay couples. However, if we take a look at the Bible, we see that the Bible considers homosexuality a capital offense. In fact, God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah primarily BECAUSE they were unanimously homosexual. However, men are slow to learn morality that they don't agree with.

As an evolutionary strategy, homosexuality is a dead end. If we tried to pass laws that LGBT people were not allowed to breed there would be an uproar, yet the community has a low birth rate.

It is wrong according to Christian, Islamic and Jewish, Mormon, Bahá'í, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism morality. This covers more than 80% of the worlds population by faith group.

From a medical stand point, anal sex and the promiscuity that has historically been part of the LGBT community are a terrible idea.

I want to distinguish between actions and orientation / curiousity.Only actions have medical consequences.Only actions have evolutionary consequences (including inaction)Only actions are judged wrong by these world religions (as far as I know)

Basically, being a gay or a lesbian means being against the nature. Nowadays, there are many homosexual couples. Even in America, gay couples are accepted to get a marriage in law. However, people have to know that it is just being against the nature. I think everyone have heard about what HIV(Human immunodeficiency virus) is. It’s a type of a disease which infects people through having sexual intercourse with a person who has HIV. There is no complete cure in current scientific technology for this disease yet. The possibility of human dying from HIV is really high. But what is the origin of HIV? There are two possible theories which can be answered for this question. The first one is that HIV is originated from human having a sexual intercourse with a monkey. The second one is a theory of gays having sexual intercourse. They showed people how being against the nature can be a cause of a serious disease. People should always do what they have to do and follow what they have to follow.

The headline may seem weird but the point that is important to put across here is that although many (or a few, I don't have exact statistics of the world) believe homosexuality to be wrong. Discrimination against the homosexual community is wrong as well.Homosexuality is wrong in terms of evolution. They cannot reproduce as a couple. This inability to reproduce as a couple will in a sense label them as a dis- abled couple. Can homosexual people ever become heterosexual is a question still left to be answered? As a Muslim (many will probably disregard my opinion now), it is believed that God warned the people of Lot to stop homosexual acts but they didn't listen. Does this mean that the people could become heterosexual or having homosexual urges was a life long test? Maybe homosexual acts are like smoking, hard to give up and the urge shall remain but the urge becomes weaker with everyday that passes.I apologise for any offence caused.

We have evolved in such a way that a male and female mate and produce an offspring. Two men (or women) obviously can't do this. What most people don't understand is that homosexuality is worse then incest. Incest, although sick, supports reproduction and the endurance of life. Homosexuality, on the other hand, does not.

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. That should be point blank, anything other is immoral. Fact.

Homosexuality is wrong, and in many ways. It teaches people that unnatural attractions are a good thing, and that having more than 200 sex partners in your life time is a good thing. (On average, homosexuals have an average of 230 partners in their lifetime.) the reason I don't call it love is because these people can't control their sex drives enough to stay with one person their entire life.

It's a proven fact that homosexuals have a higher sex drive than heterosexuals, which leads to more disease because homosexuality produces aids, stds, and HIV, yet they claim they are "healthy". A homosexual person teaches people that you can go against nature and defy what what our bodies were intended for.

It's not like they shouldn't be given equal rights but it isn't right in it of itself.

O say can you see by the dawn's early light,What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming,Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave,O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep,Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:'Tis the star-spangled banner, O! Long may it waveO'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And where is that band who so vauntingly sworeThat the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,A home and a country, should leave us no more?Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.No refuge could save the hireling and slaveFrom the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave,O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O thus be it ever, when freemen shall standBetween their loved home and the war's desolation.Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n rescued landPraise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall waveO'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Homosexuals are normal people, just with different sexual desires. If two people in love and care for each other, that should be all that matters. Gender should not play a role in love. It should not be morally wrong. Being a homosexual is exactly like being an Atheist. Atheists have been discriminated, just for being different. Being different should not be wrong, since everyone is different.

The fact that this question even needs to be asked in this day and age, let alone that people answered Yes, makes me lose faith in humanity. Who on Earth does homosexuality affect other than the two consenting partners? Even if it were "morally" wrong, it still wouldn't be the business of anyone other than gay people, considering that it's a victimless sin.

Homosexuality cannot be considered morally wrong unless you strip the words 'morally wrong' of all meaningfulness. The basis for all our morality, whether we will admit to it or not, is the minimization of unnecessary pain and suffering in other sentient beings. Homosexuality harms nobody, it is between consenting adults, and it is simply love. To say that homosexuality is morally wrong is to say that love is morally wrong. It is simple bigotry to make that claim, nothing more.

Love is love, regardless as to whether or not it is between a two men or two women. Homosexuality does not harm anyone anymore that heterosexuality. It has proved itself worthy of being accepted into today's society, hence homosexual marriage in California. It is time to let go of the old times. The times when black people were slaves and gays were ill.

Love is love. No matter who you love. I cant stand hearing overly religious people say god hates gays. Please shut up and keep you bigotry to yourself. Its not the 1700s. Its 2013. We are all equal and loved in the Lord's eyes. If homosexuality is wrong then so is getting tattoos. Its says that in the Bible too. But nowhere in Gods words does he say that homosexuality is wrong.

Many animals are naturally gay. They have published a book about it. If we are gods children (Im an atheist) why did he make some of us against his accepted image of his child. Why are gay people gay if he created us and why cant he just get rid of them. Maybe because he is more man made then you think. He can kill me since im an atheist but he cant...Why? Because he doesn't exist so stop listening to every word he says and follow your own moral compass

Who gets to decide what's wrong and what's right? We're not God.Besides,just because it's unusual,that doesn't make homosexuality wrong.Is it the fault of homosexuals,if they're born that way? Those who all believe in God,I ask them why did he make some people the way they are and then not even give them proper rights and equality?

Homosexuality is unusual. The thought of it makes many people feel uncomfortable and icky. But his does not mean it is morally wrong. Things that are clearly morally wrong, like murder, are things that harm other people. Even with more ambiguous things like drunkenness, the reason behind claims that drunkenness is immoral is that it causes people to lose control of themselves. Homosexuality neither harms people, or causes people to lose their self control. Therefore, it is not immoral.

Homosexuality is love. You love your own gender, what's the big deal? Half the planet's population loves men, and the other half loves women. I don't see why there would be an issue. A lot of religious people will try to bring religion in as an issue, particularly the Bible and Christianity. But you know what, the Bible also commands to kill children whose parents don't like them. There's not a competent way to criticize homosexuality.

First of all, asking if homosexuality is wrong means wrong as on a moral compass. Something moral doesn't harm anyone else. Homosexuality doesn't in any way harm others, even if it is abnormal. Just because something is abnormal doesn't mean it's wrong. Necrophilia violates sanctity of the dead. Zoophilia is unpleasant (understatement) for animals, and banging Fido is much farther away from someone still in the human species. Clothing is abnormal, as is 99% of human achievements. As for religion, it has no place telling people who they can and can't love. There is nothing more to say to the religious side of this issue.

I'm trying to respond directly to lucinordiche's comment, but the reply section won't let me do that (I think?), so I'll just quote and respond here:

the quote: ...The same Bible was used to justify slavery and then later segregation...So you can spin it all you want. Of course, it was also used to plainly justify sexism and the woman's role as second class citizens and domestic servants. We could go on all day...

We may be getting away from the opinion question at issue here, but I just wanted to respond to the above quote.

1. The fact that the Bible has been "used to justify" this or that says nothing reliable about the Bible itself...But only questions how many people have interpreted and applied the Bible (which, I hope we all agree, surely has included many MISinterpretations and MISapplications). Criticizing a document because people have misinterpreted it is a straw man, flawed line of reasoning, and is a cheap shot often used by those who are too lazy to really read the original document for themselves.

2. My interpretation of the Bible (which may not be accurate!) is that the Bible, while it may have been misused often, NEVER JUSTIFIES slavery, segregation, sexism, or misogyny. Many believe the Bible supports war and the use of violence as well, but I believe this also is a misapplication of the Bible. I won't quote exact passages here (though I will if you really are interested), but the Bible clearly OPPOSES slavery (and not just in the New Testament, but as far back as Exodus in the OT...Why do think God called Moses to free the slaves from Egypt?). The Bible also OPPOSES segregation and wrongful discrimination of any sort...And even MAKES FUN of racial and national discrimination (try Jonah...Which is intriguing especially for the time it was written). Several passages support treating women with equality and dignity...All the more amazing when you consider the culture during which these passages were written and taught. Lucinordiche, you're right about one thing...We truly "can spin it all we want" and we "could go on all day..."

3. Ultimately, my point is that too many people (on both sides of arguments) use the Bible far too superficially, and most of us should be ashamed for taking such stances seriously. The Bible happens to remain one of the world's bestsellers of all time, and contains passages of rich admonition, literature, history, poetry, and more. We might not agree with everything in it, but that is no excuse to dismiss it as a "book of fairytales" (itself a terribly myopic and immature stance to adopt). A much better approach would be to take a broader and more erudite view of the Bible (whether we are Christian or not) and discuss the impact it has had (for good or ill) on the world and how it might have meaning for us today.

BTW, lucinordiche's quote is in the "replies" section, and is as follows (I didn't realize this comments section would edit out the paragraphs, etc....So sorry for the lack of clarity in my comment above):

"...The same Bible was used to justify slavery and then later segregation...So you can spin it all you want. Of course, it was also used to plainly justify sexism and the woman's role as second class citizens and domestic servants. We could go on all day..."

Hmm....My comment above now DOES include paragraph separations. Weird. It all looked like one big paragraph for several days, and now, suddenly, without any input from me, it has paragraph separations. Perhaps DDO is updating some of its framework?

Regarding change and the right to treatment, lesbian activist Camille Paglia offered the following observations:

Camille Anna Paglia is an American teacher and social critic. Paglia, a self-described dissident feminist, has been a professor at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, since 1984.

"Homosexuality is not 'normal.' On the contrary, it is a challenge to the norm; therein rests its eternally revolutionary character Queer theorists - that wizened crew of flimflamming free-loaders - have tried to take the post structuralist tack of claiming that there is no norm, since everything is relative and contingent. This is the kind of silly bind that word-obsessed people get into when they are deaf, dumb, and blind to the outside world. Nature exists, whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single, relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction. Penis fits vagina; no fancy linguistic game-playing can change that biologic fact."

"Given the intense hormonal surge of puberty, the total absence of adult heterosexual desire is neither normal nor natural."

(How true, and again Ms. Paglia confirms what we as therapists have been noting for some time. But it must be realized that there is no doubt that the propaganda has had an effect on the general public, who seem to be increasingly accepting of these notions.)

"I used to feel that the old psychoanalytic model was inadequate in describing the origins of homosexuality as, essentially, arrested development. But it was true that all my gay male friends had powerful, dominating mothers in the prototypical style."

"...ACT-UP's hysteria made me reconsider those vilified therapists and ministers who think change of homosexual orientation is possible and whose meetings are constantly disrupted by gay agitators. Is gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay. Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible. However, habit is refractory...A phenomenon obvious in the struggle with obesity, smoking, alcoholism, or drug addiction... Helping gays learn how to function heterosexually, if they so wish, is a perfectly worthy aim. We should be honest enough to consider whether homosexuality may not indeed be a pausing at the prepubescent stage when children anxiously band together by gender."

(A very reasonable and sober view of both the extremist attacks that are made on those of us who believe that therapy has something to offer some patients who may wish it, and of the difficulties and resistances, conscious and unconscious, of many homosexuals.)

"The hypocrisy of lesbian feminist politics is clear in the increasing use among lesbians. . .Of sex toys and esoteric sex practices...What bothers me is that the lesbian dildo craze stubbornly avoids acknowledging its anatomy-as-destiny implications. Why stop at dildos? If penetration excites, and if receptive female genitalia are so suited to friction by penis-shaped objects, why not go on to real penises? Dildos, used for thousands of years around the world, have always been understood as temporary stop-gap measures, in the absence of men... Any woman, gay or straight, who cannot respond to penises or who finds them hideous or laughable has been traumatized by some early experience. She is neither complete as a woman nor healthy as a person. We can no longer allow, without protest, obsessives and neurotics to preach a mutilated brand of feminism to trusting young women...Lesbians who use dildos but shun penises must start admitting that they operate sexually not just for women but against men."

(Once again it is refreshing to read Ms. Paglia use words that we professionals have been virtually forbidden to use.)

"It is ridiculous to assert that gay men are interested only in other gay men and would never ogle straight men in barracks showers. When I heard this on TV I burst out laughing. Anyone who belongs to a health club knows better. Sexual tension and appraisal are constants, above all among gay men, who never stop cruising everything in sight. Seduction of straight studs is a highly erotic motif in gay porn."

"Is homosexuality a permanent solution to the problem of the nuclear family? Do we want the sexes forever divorced, in a state of permanent alienation? Lesbianism is increasing, since anxious unmasculine men have little to offer. Male homosexuality is increasing, because masculinity is in crisis... Current gay cant insists that homosexuality is 'not a choice,' ... But there is an element of choice in all behavior, sexual or otherwise. It takes an effort to deal with the opposite sex; it's safer with your own kind. The issue is one of challenge versus comfort." (I think most NARTH members would agree with every word.)

"We should be aware of the potentially pernicious intermingling of gay activism with science, which produces more propaganda than truth. Gay scientists must be scientists first, gays second."